masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Codex
TO ALL EDITORS! Codex entries are to be kept pristine. That means NO information added or taken away from their entries on the in-game Codex. Once these entries are given links, any further edits WILL be rolled back. Please save your points of interest and insightful, useful edits for related non-Codex articles where they'll be safe, because I don't want to have to undo people's hard work. --Tullis 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Links from other articles How do we want to handle linking to this Codex info from existing articles? I don't want to overwrite existing articles, as a lot of them - mainly the asari and turian articles - have had their transcribed Codex info expanded with additional material. But people should know this is here. Most pages that rely heavily on the Codex have a link to it at the bottom under Sources, but do we maybe need a more prominent link as well? --Tullis 08:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC) :I don't feel like it's necessary to have the text of the Codex entry/entries on a certain topic on its page verbatim... I'm all for paraphrasing and the like, but straight repetition doesn't seem necessary. While transcribing yesterday, I came across the Mass accelerator page, which ATM is just the codex entry on it. Not sure whether we'd want to Stub it and see about expanding, or just delete it. Regardless, I'd bet there are others in the same boat. :As for your initial question (how to link to the codex entries), I'd say we should make the Codex link a bit more prominent. Looking at the Turian article, it's way down at the bottom as a reference. IMHO, it should be somewhere up near the top ("for the Turian Codex entries, please see link"). There's surely a better way to fit it in / word it, but food for thought. Now back to Virmire. BTW, hope it wasn't too presumptuous of me to add the section heading... just wanna be able to keep this neat, for when there gets to be more on here. Hezekiah957 20:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC) ::Truth be told, my instinct is to redirect where possible and leave delete as a last resort. Codex info should definitely be here, but I want editors to feel free to add information, links, points of interest and trivia to articles as well, not feeling they have to leave out something interesting or relevant because they want to keep the Codex entry pristine. Yeah, I was initially going to add something along those lines under the opening paragraphs for the alien races, but I wanted to open it up to debate before I did anything. --Tullis 20:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) :::We could go with and/or near the article start. My personal aesthetic preference is for placing these between the (hopefully brief) introduction and the TOC. I am strongly in favour of keeping the Codex text itself pristine, to provide an obvious editorial distinction between "official" and "commentary". (Likewise planet descriptions, survey texts, etc.) I also strongly prefer, in general, that information not be duplicated so as to reduce maintenance burden. Accordingly, I think that substantial quotes of the Codex text ought simply to be linked. If an existing page consists of only Codex text, it should probably be redirected (or deleted if it has no links-here and does not serve as a useful search result). -- DRY 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) ::::What if... we could add a line similar to the QuickNavBar template to the top of each race's page, with links for their codex info? That would ameliorate the problem for the main race articles. (I agree with you, DRY: my preference is also to keep links like that between opening paragraph and TOC.) As for articles like Citadel space and Mass accelerator, maybe redirecting is the way to go. --Tullis 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC) :::::I've whipped up Template:QuickRaceBar as a starting point for discussion. Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? Feel free to modify as desired. -- DRY 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) ME2 Codex? A lot of the entries in the Mass Effect 2 Codex are exactly the same as their ME1 counterparts, but it appears right now that the Codex only covers ME1 entries. Will we be merging ME2 Codex entries onto this page or creating a seperate ME2 Codex page? :At the moment, we're hoping to avoid needing to split the page and hopefully the high degree of overlap will make this simpler. Most likely the page will be broken into two sections. (This also reduces the odds of breaking any incoming anchored links.) --DRY 17:10, February 1, 2010 (UTC) :: I noticed that for whatever reason BioWare decided to "downgrade" some ME1 codex entries--eg. the Keepers are a narrated Primary entry in ME1 but despite having the exact same text in ME2 are in the unnarrated Secondary entries. Not sure if that would have an effect on classifing the entries, though. 06:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC) ::: Thanks for pointing that out. That sort of thing does complicate things a little, but once we've got the full ME2 codex, we'll try to get it sorted. --DRY 06:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC) :What should be done if codex entries are in both ME2 and ME, but they differ? I'm thinking in particular about the one for Dreadnoughts, which give the number of dreadnoughts and the names of Earth ones. Between the 2 games, the turians constructed 2, the asari lost 1, and the humans had finished construction of 2 more. —Seburo 02:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Post both entries, making it clear that one is from ME and the other from ME2. SpartHawg948 02:39, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, I'd go with "Mass Effect" and "Mass Effect 2" sub-sections. --DRY 02:44, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Maybe it's possible to plant a little symbol next to an entry to indicate if it's an ME1, an ME2 or an ME1&ME2 entry. --ShardofTruth 11:39, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::That also has merit. Someone could try it out with the icons from the spoiler banners. --DRY 16:43, February 20, 2010 (UTC) Unused Codex Entries ME2 When looking at the related videos for a recent link for an argument, I stumbled across this. It contains four primary narriated Codex entries for Thermal Clips, the M-920 Cain, the M-100 Grenade Launcher, and the drell. I just thought I'd share this as it is interesting why they weren't included. Future DLC perhaps. Lancer1289 23:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :Hmm, so that's where the bit about thermal clips holding a bunch of heat sinks came from. Interesting. Nice find. -- Dammej (talk) 23:10, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) So yeah... I can conceivably see at least one of those entries needlessly re-opening an old debate, so I just want to point out that, as cut content, these entries are not canon. Info they contain that does line up with in-game content is fine, but any info that conflicts with in-game material is not canon, and as such, not valid for article content. Meaning that, since the thermal clip entry linked here conflicts with the in-game description and Codex entry, the in-game entry is the one we accept. SpartHawg948 23:12, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::Wasn't meaning to say that this upholds any sort of argument about the Thermal Clip being a feed for heat sinks, just that there was actually a reason for this to be speculated, instead of it coming out of thin air. I agree that this does not trump the Codex entry as it's currently stated. -- Dammej (talk) 23:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::I know, I was just trying to get that word of caution out before anyone who wanted to re-open the debate seized it and said 'See! I was right!' Hence my desire to get that up before anyone commented on the thermal clips. Trying to nip it in the bud. SpartHawg948 23:15, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::(Edit conflict x3)Yes it was a good find. However since this may open an old debate, I have to say this. As these entries are cut content, they aren't considered canon. That said, much does match the information we already have, but anthing that doesn't isn't considred canon, and some of it, mainly the Thermal Clip entry, does conflict with the info we have, which is confirmed, so it isn't canon. Lancer1289 23:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::And Spart said exaclty what I was going to anyway. Oh well, good that we share opinions. Lancer1289 23:18, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Ah, I must have misinterpreted you edit summary then. Still, it's a very interesting bit of info. I wonder what made them choose one system over the other... -- Dammej (talk) 23:19, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Can't we at least create a "Codex/Cut Entries" page and transcribe these? It's a crying shame to see these Codex entries and those unused Galactic News reports go to waste. We do have articles for other cut material. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::(edit conflict) I'd guess that it was their desire to make ammunition an issue. If you just pop in a thermal clip and then it keeps feeding new heat sinks into the weapon by itself, you aren't constantly looking for ammo. On the other hand, if you have to eject the thermal clip every time and pop a new one in, you become much more ammo-conscious. The cut version honestly doesn't sound much different from the system in the first game, while the version that made it into the game is radically different. SpartHawg948 23:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC) As to the issue of creating a page for them, I'd object to a Codex/Cut content page, as attaching it to the Codex seems (to me at least) to give these items an air of canonicity that they do not deserve, as they are not canon. I wouldn't be averse to creating a 'Cut Content' page though (or something similarly titled) and putting them there. SpartHawg948 23:25, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :I really don't think that having it as Codex/Cut Content would be a problem because we can list it at the bottom of the page and have a note both there and at the top of the page saying these aren't canon. Along with that cut content template. Otherwise I can't think of what to call the article. Lancer1289 23:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::If it can't be "Codex/Cut Content", I was thinking something along the lines of "Mass Effect 2 Cut Content", a general page where we could put the Codex entries, the Galactic News reports, and link to the cut locations we have articles for. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:30, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::Well I was looking for a better alternative. Lancer1289 23:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::I like the sound of "Mass Effect 2 Cut Content". The problem with doing it as part of the Codex and just putting notices is that we all know how well those notices work, whether we're talking embedded text, or actual notices on the page. SpartHawg948 23:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::Very true, although we haven't had an edit about Kasumi and G0-T0 for a while now. They don't work no matter how many times we try, so I also like the "Mass Effect 2 Cut Content" Article as well. Lancer1289 23:37, August 20, 2010 (UTC) I'll get started on it then. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:39, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::(edit conflict) There was a Kasumi/G0-T0 edit five days ago. I don't know about you, but anything less than a week ago doesn't count as "hasn't happened for a while now". :P SpartHawg948 23:40, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I thought it had been longer than that, oh well, a long 5 days then. Lancer1289 23:58, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Can either of you listen to the video starting at 2:45, there's a sentence which goes "M-100 proponents counter that the weapon has a fifty-year track record in reliably accepting ???? ammo, processed via..." and so on. I can't understand the word that comes before "ammo" in that sentence. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:19, August 21, 2010 (UTC) :I think it's kludge. SpartHawg948 00:21, August 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Ah, a word I've never seen before. Thanks. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC) Audio Commentary How about adding the audio commmentaries to the the Primary Codex entries. I would be glad to record some of them and put them up.--CodeMyster003 00:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :There could be something to that idea. Any chance I could trouble you for a sample? It may be nice, as there are some minor differences between the spoken and written entries for a few things, but it all comes down to the quality of the recording. SpartHawg948 00:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Very neat idea. I can actually just extract the files straight from the game, so there's no worry about having loss of quality due to recording. Not to mention the time savings involved. I'll see if I can get a sample up here in a sec. -- Dammej (talk) 01:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::Here's the entry on Tuchanka: I wonder how wikia handles audio file links... hmm. -- Dammej (talk) 01:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::Extracting the files from the game sounds like the best idea. I only have th 360 version and planned on recording it from my laptop. I think if it was done as above it would be very neat.CodeMyster003 03:06, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::Entering this a little late, but I would also have to agree it comes down the the quality, but I can see this as a good feature. We'll just have work it out a little more. Lancer1289 03:11, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::Also don't forget there are some different Primary Codex Entries, so you will need to get both. Lancer1289 03:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I've got them all extracted (Actually I had them all extracted when I posted that sample), so all that remains is to upload them and put them in the codex articles somehow. I'd really like to embed the audio alongside the codex entry so someone can see a "click here to play this entry" button and play it, rather than having to be brought to a different page. I'm running into an annoying problem though, which I'm hoping someone else can confirm is happening: Can someone with Internet Explorer tell me how the "play" button looks for the sample entry I posted above? -- Dammej (talk) 22:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I think that how you put it in that sanbox page you made was cool. SoulRipper 22:57, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Well that's not finished. :) I'm still toying with it. I hit a wall with IE though, so I'll ask again if people can tell me what the play button looks like for them on IE. It's right above the little "i" icon. -- Dammej (talk) 23:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::::It loos like a big green box, or at least to me it does. Lancer1289 23:48, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I was afraid of that. I shake my fist impotently at wikia! I think I can fix that with some CSS as a temporary solution, but really, wikia needs to fix that huge bug themselves. It doesn't happen on wikipedia, so I don't know why the heck it happens on wikia sites. Sigh. :\ -- Dammej (talk) 00:11, August 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Indeed it looks very nice on Firefox and Chrome so I don't know why IE like to mess with things. Especially things that look good on other browsers. Lancer1289 00:18, August 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Looks pretty good, and the sound quality is good, although I did have some significant and aggravating issues getting it to play, which Dammej has been informed of. SpartHawg948 05:58, August 25, 2010 (UTC)